Final Design Project
Group 8
Frank Monzon
Keaton Davis
Brandon Krick
Eunice Cavalcanti
Specifications
Water Source
Heat Pump
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Head Loss
(Btuh)
165000
172000
160000
180000
160000
160000
145000
180000
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Pipe Layout
Flow Rate Calculations
(Equation 1)
(Equation 2)
Water
Source
Heat Pump
Qrej
(Btu/h)
h1
(Btu/lb
m)
h2
(Btu/lb
m)
Mass flow
rate (lbm/hr)
Volumetric
flow rate (gpm)
165000
117857
.1
47142.857
53.07
38.09
11014.69
22.04269
B
172000
122857
.1
49142.857
53.07
38.09
11481.98
22.97783
C
160000
114285
.7
45714.285
53.07
38.09
10680.91
21.37473
D
180000
128571
.4
51428.571
53.07
38.09
12016.02
24.04657
E
160000
114285
.7
45714.285
53.07
38.09
10680.91
21.37473
F
160000
114285
.7
45714.285
53.07
38.09
10680.91
21.37473
G
145000
103571
.4
41428.571
53.07
38.09
9679.573
19.37085
H
180000
128571
.4
51428.571
53.07
38.09
12016.02
24.04657
(Equation 5)
(Equation 6)
Wc (Btu/h)
A
(Equation 3)
(Equation 4)
Qc
(Btu/h)
Pipe Sizing
Flow Rate
gp
m
.2-1
1
2
3
4
a
b
C
d
e
f
g
h
176.61
133.19
88.84
48.09
22.04
22.98
21.38
24.05
21.38
21.38
19.37
24.05
5
4
4
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2.5
3.5
3.5
3
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
3
3
2.5
2
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
ft/1
00ft
1-4
ft/1
00ft
4-6
ft/1
00ft
Pump Selection
Cost Analysis
.2-1ft/100ft system
with 100%
cost index
1-4ft/100ft system
with 120%
cost index
1-4ft/100ft system
with 100%
cost index
4-6ft/100ft system
with 129%
cost index
4-6ft/100ft system
with 100%
cost index
Pump Efficiency
.7482
.7128
.609
.7209
.6461
Electric Power
Consumed
(KWh)
2.07
2.67
3.13
3.30
3.68
Consumption
Costs ($)
165.57
213.94
250.41
263.65
294.18
Demand Costs ($)
11.76
144.41
169.02
177.97
198.57
Total Annual
Electric Cost
($)
277.32
358.35
419.43
441.62
492.75
First Cost ($)
44683
31624
31319
28147
27671
Total Present
Worth ($)
48501
36558.45
37094.49
34228.04
34456.06
Conclusion

Even though the 1 - 4 ft./100 ft. is typically the most cost effective,
the 4 - 6 ft./100 ft. proved to be the most cost effective in our case,
over the twenty year life expectancy.

Electric power consumed and consumptions costs were greatest for
the chosen piping system.

Using the PWV analysis, which includes first costs, the 4 – 6
ft./100ft. head loss system was proved to be the best choice. This is
caused by the first costs being much lower than the others systems.

Prices for pumps were not available from the supplier. They used a
cost index to price pumps relative to their cheapest pump.
Conclusion

After the twenty year life cycle cost was performed for each system,
it was determined that for the 1 – 4 ft./100 ft. and 4 – 6 ft./100 ft.
cases, the most cost effective and reliable option would include one
of the more expensive and more efficient pumps. The cheaper and
less expensive pump would be used as backup.

We recommend a 1510 2-1/2 BB pump in parallel with a 1510 2 AC
pump as a backup.

We recommend for this project using pipe sized for 4 - 6 ft./100 ft.
head loss.

The total cost of materials and labor will be $28150.00 to the
customer.